Page 2554 - Week 07 - Thursday, 18 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
of $10,000 for individuals and $50,000 for corporations. In that respect, the ability to apply a civil monetary penalty is neither new nor unique to this bill. This provision merely sets the relevant limit within the changing landscape of tribunal bodies in the territory, consistent with what was previously applied.
Therefore, against the background of the ACAT legislation, it is considered that this civil penalty provision is appropriate in the context of the CTP legislation. I will be formally responding to the committee accordingly in due course.
Finally, this amendment makes a number of technical and consequential amendments to the CTP legislative suite. A number of these consequential amendments are specific to the provisions of the amendment bill which I have already outlined. In addition, there are a number of amendments that streamline a range of definitional provisions within the structure of the new act.
The amendment bill also provides the opportunity to repeal sections 12 to 14 of the CTP act. This amendment aligns the CTP legislation with the general suite of road transport legislation. Sections 12 to 14 currently retain as a key definition the definition of the owner of a vehicle from the old third-party insurance legislation when the suite of road transport legislation was passed in 1999. In contrast, the Road.Transport (General) Act 1999 uses the term “responsible person” in relation to a motor vehicle in all other contexts.
As these two terms, “owner” and “responsible person”, are defined in essentially the same way, it is arguable that they essentially mean the same thing in the context of the overall road transport legislation. However, there is potential for confusion, given that they remain separately identified in the legislation.
The term “responsible person” is more reflective of the reality of vehicle drivers, ranging between registered operators, authorised drivers and the like. As such, this bill will make amendments to replace “owner” with the term “responsible person”; as a result, it is not necessary to retain sections 12 to 14 of the CTP act.
Section 13 of the CTP regulation is considered to be appropriate for repeal; as such, inclusion of the repeal within this amendment bill is timely and convenient. Section 13 of the CTP regulation carried over a strict liability offence that was to be applied in cases where an additional premium is due in relation to the change of construction or use of a motor vehicle. While in some cases an offence provision may serve as a deterrent, the new act now provides for a commercial means of addressing such a liability arising under the CTP legislation. Applying a commercial sanction is more appropriate in this case and reflects modern regulatory jurisprudence. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to retain section 13.
This amendment bill also provides a convenient and timely platform to transfer existing transitional regulations to relevant pieces of the road transport legislation. These transitional regulations were temporarily carried over to the new CTP legislation in anticipation of placing them within the most appropriate legislative framework. In particular, transitional provisions that relate to public passenger services will be transferred to the Road Transport (Public Passenger Services) Act
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .